Semi-weekly south Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1883-1889, 1887-02-01
THREE MAJORITY.
The Democratic Candidate Wins
The Judgeship in Circuit Court.
Judge Anderson Will Take an
Appeal.

s Judge Anderson Will Take an
Appeal.
4 The contested election case of w. p.
Winfree against A. ii. Anderson was
decided by Judge Grace in Circuit
Court last Friday, the Judgment of
the court being that Winfree was
elected by 3 majority. There were a
great many complications and nu-
merous legal points to settle in the
case and tho judgment, which was
, drawn lin writing occupied 20 pages
of legal cap. The case, as is we'll
known, was taken by appeal to the
Circuit Court, the contesting board
having decided that Anderson was
elected by IA majority. On the face
of the returns Anderson received g.
095 votes and Winfree 1905, though
one vote was disputed by Anderson,
which not being counted LETT Ander-
son majority of 80.
| Winfree alleged that large num-
Der Of fraudulent aud illegal votes
were cast for his adversary and also
charged that 60 unknown" votes
were cast In IIopkinsville for Ander-
son. These votes were challenged
and dispositions taken to prove that
said voters did not live In the district
and were absolutely unknown. An
derson denied these several grounds
of challenge and alleged large ille-
gal vote cast for Winfree, on substan-
TALLY the same grounds. The con-
testing board threw out 50 of Ander-
sons votes and 20 of Winfree's, which
left Anderson 10 majority, including
the disputed vote counted for both
candidates.
THE JUDGMENT.
"'rhe interest manifested in the re-
spective candidates in this contest, as
well as the general public interest in
same, as also the numerous legal
questions made In said contest not |
having heretofore received any au-
thoritative adjudication In this state,
induce the court to state briefly its
conclusions of both law and fact.
Taking tile provisions Of the consti-
tuition OF this state as the guide IN
liking the legal qualifications of the
voter, and reading the rules given in
the general statutes for determining
the legal domlcile or residence of any
particular voter, as being as clear and
satisfactory IN the main, and certain
ly as authoritative as those announced
by any text writer or court, other
than our own appellate court, the
same have IN the main been adopted
as the legal guide in this decision
The court concludes that
the term legal domicile or residence
is scarcely susceptible by way of def.
iniiion of anything further than a
general outline of the most prominent
features, embraced In and excluded
bysaid terms. In general terms dom
icile may be said TO be that place
which person of lawful age and or.
binary intelligence has fixed upon n
his permanent home, his abiding place
a place the center of ms business, OF
his affections, place selected ay him,
wherein he elects TO abide, subjecting
himself TO the obligations, taxes and
personal service that by the local law
of such place may be lawfully re-
quired Of him aud claiming all rights
and privileges both personal and po-
lilical that may ofright belong to him
as citizen of such place. A place
from which he does not expect to de-
part, except upon some temporary
matter of business or pleasure a place
to which (whcn absen) he expects TO
return when the matter which called
him forth has been completed, term
of great and varying flexibility in its
application to different states of fact.
The legal domicile or residence un-
questionably may admit OF lang and
often repeated dcparturesaud still re-
main. On the other hand 1t may be
at the option Of the party quickly
abandoned and new one iinmedi-
atcly acquired. II is under compli-
Gated and minute circumstances, Oft
ena question Of little more than in
tention on the part of the individual
as to which Of two or of many places,
In which he actually resides, he will
make his legal domicile or residence
and yet domicile or residence
cannot be created by mere inten-
ton alone. The act of residence
must concur with the intent. This
generaloutline l trust may suffice, sup
plemented by the further statement,
that ia its ascertainment and appli-
cation to any particular individual it
is question Of both law and fact,
and with this further qualification,
that In so far as the elective franchise
is concerned the element of time is
necessarily added by the constitution.
AS hat the voter must have his legal
residence or domicilein the state 2
years unless the whole time has been
in the county where he oiieres to vote
aud then one year will suffice and
that in all cases 60 days in the district
where he votes Immediately proceed
ing his voting. Thus it
often may and does happen
that mans legal residence
may be certainly known, clearly as
certained, aud yet by reason of the